Pocono Record wins Right to Know fight with Westfall Township

Westfall Township has been directed by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records to provide documents that it withheld from the Pocono Record.

Comment

By BETH BRELJE

poconorecord.com

By BETH BRELJE

Posted Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:01 AM

By BETH BRELJE

Posted Feb. 14, 2013 at 12:01 AM

» Social News

Westfall Township has been directed by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records to provide documents that it withheld from the Pocono Record.

On Jan. 10, the Pocono Record submitted a Right to Know request to Westfall seeking "any and all letters, emails, correspondence or agreements between local fireworks retailers and Westfall Township or its representatives from August 2012 to present."

The township denied the request, citing potential litigation.

Thinking the request may have been too broad, the Pocono Record made a second, narrower request seeking correspondence to and from the township and to and from Phantom Fireworks or any other fireworks distributor or retailer regarding the granting of money by the fireworks company to the township.

The township did not deny such records existed, but said the Pocono Record could not have the information due to potential litigation.

The newspaper further narrowed the request, asking specifically for information regarding Phantom Fireworks granting money to the township.

Again, the township denied the request due to potential litigation.

Why would the township sue Phantom if the company was giving it money? Or, why would Phantom give Westfall money if it was suing the township?

The Pocono Record appealed the township's denial to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, and on Wednesday, the appeal was granted.

Westfall has 30 days to provide the requested records or appeal the decision to the Pike County Court of Common Pleas.

The Pocono Record argued that the request is a matter of public interest: Residents are entitled to know how and where the township gets its money and how that might or might not affect or benefit Westfall taxpayers.

The township fought the appeal, saying B.J. Alan Company, parent company of Phantom Fireworks, sent the township a letter Sept. 4, outlining various legal challenges that could be made to a proposed township-imposed fireworks tax.

The letter is not a legal document generated by the township or solicitor, the Office of Open Records noted in its decision. Instead, it was generated by a third party and outlines an approach that may be used in future litigation. All records that are tangentially related to possible litigation are not necessarily privileged.

In September, township supervisors proposed a combined tax on the sale of fireworks and local canoe livery businesses.

In October, the fireworks tax was suddenly taken off the table, and in the next months, supervisors implemented a "fun tax" on canoe liveries and ticket sales to any entertainment event or recreational activity.

During the discussion of the fun tax, some supervisors suggested that if canoe livery owners wanted to make an annual donation to the township, supervisors might consider accepting a donation instead of implementing a tax.

For months, public discussion of a fireworks tax was nonexistent.

Then in a January township supervisors meeting, Solicitor Robert Bernathy said he met with a representative of Phantom Fireworks, and the company had recognized the township's authority to enact a fireworks tax. The company wanted to explore other options, Bernathy said.

The fireworks tax is back on the table, which came as news to Brian Shaub, owner of Keystone Fireworks, who said he had not been invited to any meetings with the township.